It would be interesting to see poll results on whether people think Cameron will resign if Scotland votes Yes, and also whether people think he should do so.
The issue has never been about whether the deficit needs to be cut. It has always been about how. Yet Labour have managed to completely abandon that argument in favour of pretending that the deficit doesn't really need to be cut. Idiots.
That might be the argument among the elites and the Westminster bubble, but it's not the argument amongst the general public.
Witness the YouGov poll just before the Budget:
If George Osborne has money to spend at the next Budget, which of the following do you think should be his main priority?
Tax cuts: 41% Cutting the deficit: 22% Increasing public spending: 21%
Those poll results are not great news for lefties since there's more hunger for tax cuts than spending, but it still shows how it's utter nonsense to claim any party who says they don't believe in cutting the deficit is not "credible". It's NEVER been public consensus that we should put paying off "the markets" ahead of British people.
Henry VIII's wars led to the 'Great Debasement' (money printing avant la lettre) and, of course, the Dissolution of the Monasteries, the greatest act of nationalisation between the Labour Government of 1945 and the Norman Conquest of 1066.
The dissolution of the monasteries cannot be described as an act of nationalisation, pace C.S.L. Davies and his fellow travellers. The church was a branch of the state, and even more so after the Act of Supremacy. In fact, church land was sold off to private landlords, such as the Duke of Norfolk, who consolidated theretofore dispersed estates. It was only after Mary pledged not to reverse the dissolution that the political community was prepared to reverse the Royal Supremacy in 1554. The dissolution, if anything, was a nascent example of privatisation, and one that made the Crown a lot of money... The place to start on the Henrician Reformation is E.H. Shagan's Popular politics and the English Reformation, (Cambridge, 2002), rather than with the classic, but dated sectarian debate between Dickens and McCulloch on the one hand, and Haigh and Duffy on the other.
Surely one of the greatest nationalisations between the Conquest and 1945 was the nationalisation of justice by Henry II, and the creation of the common law of England. That is one nationalisation for which we can all be thankful.
Also, I've said it before, but I really find it hilarious that PBers still claim hand on heart that they believe Labour's current platform is socialist or dangerous. By any objective measure, their current platform of slashing spending further to needlessly create a surplus is more rightwing than Tony Blair's.
And this is yet another example of the Westminster bubble being hopelessly out of touch with public opinion. When asked, the public always answer that they think Cameron/the Tories are further to the right than Miliband/Labour are to the left. Most people don't think Labour stand for anything at all at the moment, they certainly don't think he's some raving Marxist, and the few times he's said something vaguely leftwing, he's reaped far bigger poll boosts than when he's moved to the so-called "centre-ground" or by pledging to create surpluses or whatever other nonsense.
Henry VIII's wars led to the 'Great Debasement' (money printing avant la lettre) and, of course, the Dissolution of the Monasteries, the greatest act of nationalisation between the Labour Government of 1945 and the Norman Conquest of 1066.
The dissolution of the monasteries cannot be described as an act of nationalisation, pace C.S.L. Davies and his fellow travellers. The church was a branch of the state, and even more so after the Act of Supremacy. In fact, church land was sold off to private landlords, such as the Duke of Norfolk, who consolidated theretofore dispersed estates. It was only after Mary pledged not to reverse the dissolution that the political community was prepared to reverse the Royal Supremacy in 1554. The dissolution, if anything, was a nascent example of privatisation, and one that made the Crown a lot of money... The place to start on the Henrician Reformation is E.H. Shagan's Popular politics and the English Reformation, (Cambridge, 2002), rather than with the classic, but dated sectarian debate between Dickens and McCulloch on the one hand, and Haigh and Duffy on the other.
Surely one of the greatest nationalisations between the Conquest and 1945 was the nationalisation of justice by Henry II, and the creation of the common law of England. That is one nationalisation for which we can all be thankful.
What complete rot.
The dioceses and religious orders were not branches of the state and the Roman Catholic ones of today still are not.
The Royal Supremacy was itself an act of nationalisation as he took all the assets of the Roman Catholic Church in England into his own possession. The fact he chose to then liquidate them is irrelevant. It's like saying an object isn't stolen until it's been fenced.
Reducing taxes for people on below average incomes: 24% Reducing the deficit: 22% Increasing spending on public services: 21% Reducing taxes for people on average incomes: 17% Reducing taxes on businesses: 4% None of these: 3% Don't know: 8%
Doesn't exactly seem to be overwhelming evidence of people demanding the deficit be cut and thinking anyone who doesn't pledge to needlessly cut it further is not "credible".
I'm preparing for lots of mocking and sniggering at this, but it seems to me the only person who can keep Scotland in the UK is Ed Miliband. Not by him simply campaigning and wowing people with his "charisma", and certainly not by him joining in with the ludicrous scaremongering that Better Together have been peddling so far. But by him setting out a drastically more left-wing position which will make Scottish Labour voters feel there's actually a point in staying in the UK because there's atleast a CHANCE they'll eventually get a government which doesn't just pander to greedy southern-Englanders and big businesses with their demands for endless austerity, scrounger-bashing and letting the super-rich get away with blue murder.
Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon certainly seem to think that "it's impossible for Scotland to ever get a government we'll be happy with when Labour are peddling these policies" is a potent attack line judging by their conference last week (is it too unrealistic to suggest that conference might be the main reason for the surge in the ICM poll?). Ed is the only person who can defuse that potentially referendum-winning argument.
No sniggering as you seem all too aware that little Ed will win nothing via the force of his 'charisma' but you do seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about SLAB, better together and little Ed and Labour's hierarchy.
SLAB are wholly subservient to westminster Labour. They have no real autonomy and those who have charted the better together campaign so far are there because little Ed put them there and they are carrying out his directives. The same thing happened in 2011 yet after that disaster little Ed and Labour's response was to put SLAB on an even tighter leash because they mistakenly believed the negative strategy was the correct one and it was all SLAB's fault for not doing it right.
As for little Ed putting forth a left-wing position, again you already seem aware that is hardly what little Ed is all about so not only would that have to happen but more importantly it would have to be believed and I'm afraid little Ed is not best placed for that either.
In fact his contribution so far has been mainly to bang on somewhat eccentrically about 'foreigners' and how much he wouldn't like them as well as getting it very wrong about scotland and the NHS. I would certainly welcome more of the same from him but I do wonder if he realises just how weak an argument those are.
To be fair though nothing is more amusing than watching the tories incompetently jump on the negativity and doommongering bandwagon that SLAB and Labour have been doing since 2007 and with considerably more hysteria. Witness wee Georgie Robertson recently shrieking about "calamity" and "dark forces" for the western world to the amusement of so many.
The dioceses and religious orders were not branches of the state and the Roman Catholic ones of today still are not.
The Royal Supremacy was itself an act of nationalisation as he took all the assets of the Roman Catholic Church in England into his own possession. The fact he chose to then liquidate them is irrelevant. It's like saying an object isn't stolen until it's been fenced.
The dioceses and religious orders were part of the state after the break with Rome, subject to the vicegerentcy of Thomas Cromwell. That is a historical fact. The dissolution of the monasteries disposed of a state asset, and cannot be described as a nationalisation. No one, not even Clement VII or Paul III, would have argued that the church was independent of the state. Indeed, those who advocated the plenitudo potestatis of the Roman see, which was the official position of the catholic church, (cf. James of Viterbo's De Regimine Christiano for the high view) were hierocrats, and viewed the state as part of the church.
Your argument is entirely anachronistic, trying to look at what happened in the sixteenth century through the distorting prism of modern conceptions of religion. The modern orders and dioceses are new creations, and are not analogous to what existed in sixteenth century England. Indeed, the creation of the popish dioceses in the nineteenth century in England was (rightly) viewed by Lord John Russell's government as an act of papal aggression, and the Ecclesiastical Titles Act 1851 was passed in consequence.
Only a day late with that exclusive link / retweet Pork
You mean the PB tories have been trying to pretend it didn't happen for that long? That is a surprise.
LOL
It was posted when the story came out.
So any further posting is unnecessary because it embarrasses Cammie? I can't see it myself but I suppose anything is worth a try. Cammie's judgement certainly is tip-top, isn't it? Ah well, at least the expenses scandals are over...
No sniggering as you seem all too aware that little Ed will win nothing via the force of his 'charisma' but you do seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about SLAB, better together and little Ed and Labour's hierarchy.
SLAB are wholly subservient to westminster Labour. They have no real autonomy and those who have charted the better together campaign so far are there because little Ed put them there and they are carrying out his directives. The same thing happened in 2011 yet after that disaster little Ed and Labour's response was to put SLAB on an even tighter leash because they mistakenly believed the negative strategy was the correct one and it was all SLAB's fault for not doing it right.
As for little Ed putting forth a left-wing position, again you already seem aware that is hardly what little Ed is all about so not only would that have to happen but more importantly it would have to be believed and I'm afraid little Ed is not best placed for that either.
In fact his contribution so far has been mainly to bang on somewhat eccentrically about 'foreigners' and how much he wouldn't like them as well as getting it very wrong about scotland and the NHS. I would certainly welcome more of the same from him but I do wonder if he realises just how weak an argument those are.
To be fair though nothing is more amusing than watching the tories incompetently jump on the negativity and doommongering bandwagon that SLAB and Labour have been doing since 2007 and with considerably more hysteria. Witness wee Georgie Robertson recently shrieking about "calamity" and "dark forces" for the western world to the amusement of so many.
You might well be right that Scottish Labour are subservient to people in Westminster Labour, but I thought the assumption was that it was Jim Murphy and Douglas Alexander were those who were pulling the strings? I wouldn't necessarily attribute the appalling negativity of the BT campaign to Ed himself.
That said, I do agree with your paragraph that, even if Ed could discover the testicular fortitude to face down the NewLabour diehards and set out a radical leftwing position, it's questionable whether Scottish people would even believe him. It might be too late in the day to come across as sincere; it might well (perhaps rightly) be seen as just a cynical ploy to try and secure a "No" vote, which will be ditched and a return to "centre-ground" New Labour southern England-appeasing the day after the referendum. I imagine, for the few people who paid attention, Ed going to the Scottish Labour conference and claiming the SNP were pursuing Tory policies, and then himself going south of the border to order Labour MPs to vote for a ridiculous "welfare cap" a few days later, will not have left a good impression.
You might well be right that Scottish Labour are subservient to people in Westminster Labour, but I thought the assumption was that it was Jim Murphy and Douglas Alexander were those who were pulling the strings? I wouldn't necessarily attribute the appalling negativity of the BT campaign to Ed himself.
That said, I do agree with your paragraph that, even if Ed could discover the testicular fortitude to face down the NewLabour diehards and set out a radical leftwing position, it's questionable whether Scottish people would even believe him. It might be too late in the day to come across as sincere; it might well (perhaps rightly) be seen as just a cynical ploy to try and secure a "No" vote, which will be ditched and a return to "centre-ground" New Labour southern England-appeasing the day after the referendum. I imagine, for the few people who paid attention, Ed going to the Scottish Labour conference and claiming the SNP were pursuing Tory policies, and then himself going south of the border to order Labour MPs to vote for a ridiculous "welfare cap" a few days later, will not have left a good impression.
Wee Dougie certainly but you do realise he did much the same in 2011 and he did it because he was told to do it by little Ed? Murphy not so much and indeed he and wee Dougie seem to have had a falling out with Murphy far more sympathetic to Brown's 'united with labour' aims of keeping well away from the tories in better together. Little Ed may not be the one personally doing the scaremongering but it's a bit much to think he has nothing to do with SLAB and better together strategy. He absolutely does. He's the leader of the labour party.
You imagine correctly about little Ed and the welfare cap and you do seem to have a far better grasp of the fundamentals than the PB tories. Okay that does seem to be damning with the faintest of praise but in this case it's not meant sarcastically.
It's not even so much that little Ed needs to be radical or left-wing, he just needs to get it into his head that nothing, but NOTHING, he does will be treated as anything other than dangerous socialism/communism from the right-wing press and their amusing cheerleaders. So what he really needs to find the balls for is to learn to ignore them since they are not only obviously going to attack him ferociously during the election campaign but the more pertinent (and on-topic ) point is that they are increasingly a political irrelevance. He doesn't NEED to try and get the right-wing press on board any more with endless tory triangulating and posturing. The public doesn't really care all that much over what they say and they respect the tabloid press less with every passing day.
A week or three ago I reported on the fact that Assad had, yet again, been deploying chemical weapons in his death match with insurgents. The choice of weapon appears to be chlorine gas and since that report at least 3 other reported attacks have take place. At least.
Now it looks as if the International community, or at least a few of the West, have started to take notice. Certainly credible 3rd party intelligence service information was given to the US very recently and without going into detail plenty of US officials have been turning up in the region, so take your pick. Now the French and British are reportedly investigating stories of these gas attacks. The relative silence from the US may be head in the sand or, perhaps more likely, Obama letting allies do the groundwork.
Forget the idea that Assad is decommissioning gear under the US-Russian deal. Some of the stockpile is going but its the likes of the Sarin etc. Other more brute force rather than clinical killers are still in the stockpile, the one that should have been gone by now.
This time, it is expected that there will be consequences if the attacks are proven and there is a move between Washington, Paris and London to start building up a case should it be seen fit. Either a regional party or the collective West, if Obama doesn't do a last minute back out again. This time he has more reason to give it a go, its a dig at Russia who he now realises are no longer friends.
@Ninoinoz You ignore the point about Roman dioceses being abolished in the sixteenth century, and not being re-established until the nineteenth century, and then in a very different form. The superstitious orders were reintroduced into England, but long after they had been extinguished.
You now appear to be arguing, contrary to your original position, that it was not the dissolution of the monasteries that constituted an act of nationalisation, but the establishment of the royal supremacy. The royal supremacy pertained to jurisdiction. The king was given the power to render and yield justice in all cases, and became head of the church of England. The bishop of Rome's jurisdiction in England was ended. It therefore fell to the Crown to administer church lands. Had you read some history, you would have discovered that monasteries had been dissolved before the break with Rome (e.g. by Wolsey to endow Cardinal Colleges, Ipswich & Oxford). The Crown dissolved monasteries in accordance with the same principle after 1536, albeit at a faster rate. The term 'nationalisation' is utterly inappropriate and anachronistic. Does it only become 'nationalisation' because it was Cromwell doing it rather than Wolsey? The latter was, of course, both Archbishop of York and Lord High Chancellor. That is pure sectarian whitewashing, which even the likes of Duffy refrain from.
When you claim that '[t]he church is not above the law, but neither is it beneath it', you are making a contemporary political argument, not an historical one. It is a fact that before the break with Rome the popish church had courts with punitive jurisdiction over everyone in the realm. The dissolution was, of course, carried out scrupulously in accordance with the law, the principle of parliamentary sovereignty having been established by the Act in restraint of appeals (1533), following the thesis of the 1531 New Additions to St Germain's Doctor & Student. The church was no more below the law than Anne Boleyn or Sir Thomas More.
My suggestion is that you read some history, rather than attempting to distort the historical record for contemporary purposes. Then again, from the "Donation of Constantine" and the pseudo-Isidorian decretals on, it has always been the practice of papists to paper over anything in history which is remotely inconvenient...
Mr Y0kel, there was an article on the BBC website, (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27018798) posted on April 14th, by Jim Muir from Beirut, in which he gave it as his view that Assad was now winning, and that the rebellion would soon be confined to relatively small areas of the country, chiefly border areas.
Mr Y0kel, there was an article on the BBC website, (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-27018798) posted on April 14th, by Jim Muir from Beirut, in which he gave it as his view that Assad was now winning, and that the rebellion would soon be confined to relatively small areas of the country, chiefly border areas.
Yes and No. No-one yet has the decisive upper hand. He has certainly recaptured territory but this is contested space that has went back and forth. Assad has got a fair amount back. Large swathes of the country are still not, however, in his control.
One reason he has had some success is that the insurgents are as split as ever and also quite a number of the radicals who are not massive in numbers but are certainly capable in fighting terms have mysteriously left the country..and gone to Iraq.
Comments
Witness the YouGov poll just before the Budget:
If George Osborne has money to spend at the next Budget, which of the following do you think should be his main priority?
Tax cuts: 41%
Cutting the deficit: 22%
Increasing public spending: 21%
Those poll results are not great news for lefties since there's more hunger for tax cuts than spending, but it still shows how it's utter nonsense to claim any party who says they don't believe in cutting the deficit is not "credible". It's NEVER been public consensus that we should put paying off "the markets" ahead of British people.
Surely one of the greatest nationalisations between the Conquest and 1945 was the nationalisation of justice by Henry II, and the creation of the common law of England. That is one nationalisation for which we can all be thankful.
And this is yet another example of the Westminster bubble being hopelessly out of touch with public opinion. When asked, the public always answer that they think Cameron/the Tories are further to the right than Miliband/Labour are to the left. Most people don't think Labour stand for anything at all at the moment, they certainly don't think he's some raving Marxist, and the few times he's said something vaguely leftwing, he's reaped far bigger poll boosts than when he's moved to the so-called "centre-ground" or by pledging to create surpluses or whatever other nonsense.
PM hired bankrupt crony to run £60billion quango http://dailym.ai/1izYEGa @david_cameron Excellent judgement again...Eton dunce
Comedy fop.
*chortle*
The dioceses and religious orders were not branches of the state and the Roman Catholic ones of today still are not.
The Royal Supremacy was itself an act of nationalisation as he took all the assets of the Roman Catholic Church in England into his own possession. The fact he chose to then liquidate them is irrelevant. It's like saying an object isn't stolen until it's been fenced.
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/wfv8zfn18c/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-140131.pdf --> (pg.6)
Reducing taxes for people on below average incomes: 24%
Reducing the deficit: 22%
Increasing spending on public services: 21%
Reducing taxes for people on average incomes: 17%
Reducing taxes on businesses: 4%
None of these: 3%
Don't know: 8%
Doesn't exactly seem to be overwhelming evidence of people demanding the deficit be cut and thinking anyone who doesn't pledge to needlessly cut it further is not "credible".
SLAB are wholly subservient to westminster Labour. They have no real autonomy and those who have charted the better together campaign so far are there because little Ed put them there and they are carrying out his directives. The same thing happened in 2011 yet after that disaster little Ed and Labour's response was to put SLAB on an even tighter leash because they mistakenly believed the negative strategy was the correct one and it was all SLAB's fault for not doing it right.
As for little Ed putting forth a left-wing position, again you already seem aware that is hardly what little Ed is all about so not only would that have to happen but more importantly it would have to be believed and I'm afraid little Ed is not best placed for that either.
In fact his contribution so far has been mainly to bang on somewhat eccentrically about 'foreigners' and how much he wouldn't like them as well as getting it very wrong about scotland and the NHS. I would certainly welcome more of the same from him but I do wonder if he realises just how weak an argument those are.
To be fair though nothing is more amusing than watching the tories incompetently jump on the negativity and doommongering bandwagon that SLAB and Labour have been doing since 2007 and with considerably more hysteria. Witness wee Georgie Robertson recently shrieking about "calamity" and "dark forces" for the western world to the amusement of so many.
That is a surprise.
LOL
Your argument is entirely anachronistic, trying to look at what happened in the sixteenth century through the distorting prism of modern conceptions of religion. The modern orders and dioceses are new creations, and are not analogous to what existed in sixteenth century England. Indeed, the creation of the popish dioceses in the nineteenth century in England was (rightly) viewed by Lord John Russell's government as an act of papal aggression, and the Ecclesiastical Titles Act 1851 was passed in consequence.
Ah well, at least the expenses scandals are over...
Aren't they?
That said, I do agree with your paragraph that, even if Ed could discover the testicular fortitude to face down the NewLabour diehards and set out a radical leftwing position, it's questionable whether Scottish people would even believe him. It might be too late in the day to come across as sincere; it might well (perhaps rightly) be seen as just a cynical ploy to try and secure a "No" vote, which will be ditched and a return to "centre-ground" New Labour southern England-appeasing the day after the referendum. I imagine, for the few people who paid attention, Ed going to the Scottish Labour conference and claiming the SNP were pursuing Tory policies, and then himself going south of the border to order Labour MPs to vote for a ridiculous "welfare cap" a few days later, will not have left a good impression.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/letters/10777417/David-Cameron-fosters-division-by-calling-Britain-a-Christian-country.html
Wee Dougie certainly but you do realise he did much the same in 2011 and he did it because he was told to do it by little Ed? Murphy not so much and indeed he and wee Dougie seem to have had a falling out with Murphy far more sympathetic to Brown's 'united with labour' aims of keeping well away from the tories in better together. Little Ed may not be the one personally doing the scaremongering but it's a bit much to think he has nothing to do with SLAB and better together strategy. He absolutely does. He's the leader of the labour party.
You imagine correctly about little Ed and the welfare cap and you do seem to have a far better grasp of the fundamentals than the PB tories. Okay that does seem to be damning with the faintest of praise but in this case it's not meant sarcastically.
It's not even so much that little Ed needs to be radical or left-wing, he just needs to get it into his head that nothing, but NOTHING, he does will be treated as anything other than dangerous socialism/communism from the right-wing press and their amusing cheerleaders. So what he really needs to find the balls for is to learn to ignore them since they are not only obviously going to attack him ferociously during the election campaign but the more pertinent (and on-topic
A week or three ago I reported on the fact that Assad had, yet again, been deploying chemical weapons in his death match with insurgents. The choice of weapon appears to be chlorine gas and since that report at least 3 other reported attacks have take place. At least.
Now it looks as if the International community, or at least a few of the West, have started to take notice. Certainly credible 3rd party intelligence service information was given to the US very recently and without going into detail plenty of US officials have been turning up in the region, so take your pick. Now the French and British are reportedly investigating stories of these gas attacks. The relative silence from the US may be head in the sand or, perhaps more likely, Obama letting allies do the groundwork.
Forget the idea that Assad is decommissioning gear under the US-Russian deal. Some of the stockpile is going but its the likes of the Sarin etc. Other more brute force rather than clinical killers are still in the stockpile, the one that should have been gone by now.
This time, it is expected that there will be consequences if the attacks are proven and there is a move between Washington, Paris and London to start building up a case should it be seen fit. Either a regional party or the collective West, if Obama doesn't do a last minute back out again. This time he has more reason to give it a go, its a dig at Russia who he now realises are no longer friends.
Slow burner.
You ignore the point about Roman dioceses being abolished in the sixteenth century, and not being re-established until the nineteenth century, and then in a very different form. The superstitious orders were reintroduced into England, but long after they had been extinguished.
You now appear to be arguing, contrary to your original position, that it was not the dissolution of the monasteries that constituted an act of nationalisation, but the establishment of the royal supremacy. The royal supremacy pertained to jurisdiction. The king was given the power to render and yield justice in all cases, and became head of the church of England. The bishop of Rome's jurisdiction in England was ended. It therefore fell to the Crown to administer church lands. Had you read some history, you would have discovered that monasteries had been dissolved before the break with Rome (e.g. by Wolsey to endow Cardinal Colleges, Ipswich & Oxford). The Crown dissolved monasteries in accordance with the same principle after 1536, albeit at a faster rate. The term 'nationalisation' is utterly inappropriate and anachronistic. Does it only become 'nationalisation' because it was Cromwell doing it rather than Wolsey? The latter was, of course, both Archbishop of York and Lord High Chancellor. That is pure sectarian whitewashing, which even the likes of Duffy refrain from.
When you claim that '[t]he church is not above the law, but neither is it beneath it', you are making a contemporary political argument, not an historical one. It is a fact that before the break with Rome the popish church had courts with punitive jurisdiction over everyone in the realm. The dissolution was, of course, carried out scrupulously in accordance with the law, the principle of parliamentary sovereignty having been established by the Act in restraint of appeals (1533), following the thesis of the 1531 New Additions to St Germain's Doctor & Student. The church was no more below the law than Anne Boleyn or Sir Thomas More.
My suggestion is that you read some history, rather than attempting to distort the historical record for contemporary purposes. Then again, from the "Donation of Constantine" and the pseudo-Isidorian decretals on, it has always been the practice of papists to paper over anything in history which is remotely inconvenient...
One reason he has had some success is that the insurgents are as split as ever and also quite a number of the radicals who are not massive in numbers but are certainly capable in fighting terms have mysteriously left the country..and gone to Iraq.